"Everybody's For It"
Part of what's irritating about watching the Gammage campaign these days is the degree to which Gammage and others are asking us to forget what type of Democrat he was back in the day. There's been much hemming and hawing over Gammage on abortion, just as there's been some hemming and hawing over Carole Whatshername on abortion. Rule #1 ... anyone running that changes their mind on the issue likely isn't worth a vote. Gammage has admitted that he wouldn't have made certain votes that he would have back in the day if he were in Congress today.
Of course, that's real easy to say when you're NOT in Congress anymore. In fact, when Gammage was in only his first term, there was a perennial threat of Ron Paul running against him. Let's cut to Wikipedia for the relevant history:
He became a delegate to the Texas state Republican convention in 1974. He was an unsuccessful Republican candidate for election to Congress in 1974 against entrenched liberal Democrat Robert R. Casey. When Casey was appointed head of the Federal Maritime Commission by President Gerald Ford, a special election was held in April 1976 to replace him. Paul won that election, lost six months later in the general election to Democrat Robert A. Gammage, then defeated him in a 1978 rematch. He went on to be re-elected in 1980 and 1982.
As part of Gammage's defensiveness in his district, he made one move that is rather curious in light of some of his current positions. I'm specifically talking about his previous support of the House Un-American Activities Commission (HUAC). The same HUAC that launched Joe McCarthy to infamy. The same HUAC that House Democrats fought against for years to shut down. The same HUAC that, by railing against, helped propel my own political icon, Bill Proxmire, to succeed McCarthy after his passing away in 1957.
In 1977, of course, Bob Gammage attempted to reinstate HUAC (PDF). Now? He's reinventing his civil liberties interest by opposing the sale of cell phone records. All fine and well, but I'm not entirely down with someone who has to flip-flop on civil liberties either.
Check some of the co-sponsors mentioned in the article, and Larry McDonald jumps out. McDonald was a national director for the John Birch Society. The final graf of the PDF is worth a modern-day reprint:
Gammage could not be contacted for comment Monday but his administrative assistant, Stuart Glass, said his boss had received "hundreds of letters" from his district urging him to support the re-establishment of the internal security panel."There's strong sentiment for it in the district," said Glass. "Judging from our mail, everybody's for it and nobody's against it."
Just another action Gammage wouldn't do if he had it all over to do again? Or can we just call this what it is - a blatant attempt to reinvent yourself from wholecloth?
Wonder what candidate Greg is supporting?
There's rarely any doubt where I stand or whom I stand with ;-)
Maybe you aren't old enought to remember. Maybe you don't care... but I actually remember what this was in response to (and it wasn't a re-authorization of the HUAC. I was working in DC at the time.
The internal security committee was in existence from 1969 to 1975. This committee essentially only investigated pipeline explosions in Alaska to determine if sabotage was involved.
There had been a recent standoff in DC where group of Saudis had taken over a building in DC, hostages and all. Members of Congress, thinking that they had no current legal authority to hold hearings about it, decided they needed to create some legislation so that all of the fact-finding didn't rest only with the Justice department and law-enforcement.
A bill was written and this vote was a discharge petition to get it out of committee.
Congressional staff (I was privy to some of the work while it was in process) discovered later on that the House Judiciary committee already possessed authority to hold such hearings, so this bill was dropped and never went anywhere.
A note to Greg: If all you intend to do is post talking points from Jason Stanford of the Bell campaign, you should at least post a disclaimer (even 'in kind' contributions have to show a 'paid for' message) .
"Members of Congress, thinking that they had no current legal authority to hold hearings about it, decided they needed to create some legislation so that all of the fact-finding didn't rest only with the Justice department and law-enforcement."
That rationale really isn't a better reflection of Gammage or any of the others who signed the discharge petition. If anyone couldn't have figured out how a Judiciary Committee wouldn't have had jurisdiction, then I'm rather curious why such a person should be entrusted with the keys to the Governor's Mansion today.
Oh, and if the fine folks of the Gammage campaign team are going to be commenting, by all means, let's see some full disclosure yourselves. Fake IDs (three of 'em) from the same IP address? Really now.
Heh ...
For this (as well as Gammage's now undisputed gullibility on the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee) we needed to risk Birch Society-styled McCarthyism in 1977?
Add to this, the fact that the hostage takers were already convicted by the time of this news report on Gammage.
Oh man ... Fish. In. Barrel.
ref: http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:7vY_NpGnE-sJ:www.likud.nl/press372.html+Hanafi+Muslims+hostages&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=49&client=firefox-a
Oh, and um, a clearer reading of the history and rationale for the revised HUAC. Funny. No mention of the hostage situation as a basis for some immediate need. In fact, not even a mention of jurisdictional questions. Rather, it seems the Bircher on the committee just had this bug up his rump ever since the committee was disbanded.
Maybe Team Gammage needs to rethink their own talking points ;-)
ref: http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandDefense/bg26.cfm?renderforprint=1
It is wonderful to see references to the HUAC; it really brings back memories of my youth. Interesting to see HUAC and McCarthy linked together ("The same HUAC that launched Joe McCarthy....."). As I remember it, HUAC was a committee of the House of Representatives and McCarty was a Senator. Then as now, the House had enough nuts for these committes without involving a Senator. The Senator was able to do his own mischief. (I should also note that in my history of HUAC, Gammage's name does not appear)
Also a comment on Ol'DC Pol comments, who wrote:
'The internal security committee was in existence from 1969 to 1975. This committee essentially only investigated pipeline explosions in Alaska to determine if sabotage was involved.'
What pipeline in Alaska is he talking about? The Trans-Alaskan Pipeline was built between 1975 and 1977 and certainly was not threatened with, or suffered from, explosions (except in cost, but that is a different subject) before it was built.
Leif, you are correct, permits for construction of the Trans-Alaskan pipeline began in 1974. But as you are probably well aware, oil was discovered on the North Slope in 1968. There are many pipelines used in a field -- from the well-head to storage facilities, from storage facilities to delivery points. They could be 50 ft or 3 miles (or more) long and still be a 'pipeline'.
So far as I have been able to discover, the map coordinates for whatever security threats may have existed (if they were security problems and not structural or production problems) must be buried in the bowels of the Library of Congress. They don't seem to be 'locatable' online.
Mike McCormack's (D-WA) archived papers reference this committee quite often, though the contents of his papers are not online, the indexes are at http://www.wsulibs.wsu.edu/holland/masc/finders/cg690.htm from 1971 to 1979. It is just conjecture, but since he was considered an expert on energy matters and spent much of his career on that issue, his specific interest in this committee reinforces the existing evidence that what the purpose of the committee was... was as stated. Again, it's speculation because I do not have access to the papers directly to verify my supposition. But it's informed speculation.
Oh, and Greg... I am not Team anything. I am a former Congressional and US Senate staffer -- retired. If my posting habits seem suspicious to you, it is because there are too many bloggers these days selling harvested email addresses for a quick buck.
I've noted that you have no privacy policy posted. There is not even a 'promise' that you won't engage in that practice.
So for all I know, you could be one of those selling emails and isp addresses to whatever vitamin supplement, male (or female) enhancement product or real estate scam artist that comes along.
Thanks but no thanks....
"...we needed to risk Birch Society-styled McCarthyism in 1977?"
McCarthy used innuendo to destroy people's reputations. The way Chris Bell and his supporters do. We need to risk Birch Society-styled McCarthyism in 2006? Thanks, as the gentleman said, but no thanks.
You need to get your facts straight before posting this kind of garbage. Or Jason Stanford does. No doubt the reason the other blogs and the media haven't picked up on this is because like most of us they knew immediately where it was coming from. And knew it was just more of the same "slash-and-trash" from a candidate who can't debate issues and so instead chooses to defame his opponents. The only "McCarthy" in the governor's race is Chris Bell.
Personally I wish Bob Gammage would "comment" by filing a libel suit against you.
Greg, as a fan of your blog and your unique brand of Democratic ideology, I am disappointed in the way you have chosen to "discuss" the Gov primary, i.e. all opposition research on Gammage all the time. I have no objections to Dems choosing sides, I do support Gammage and will continue to advocate on his behalf, just as you have a right to advocate for Bell.
Thanks for carrying the water for the Repubs. in the general election by teeing up the talking points.
Quite an introduction to Greg and his opinion - ad hominem seems to be the exclusive approach - and absent any capacity for introspection regarding his own misrepresentations of the facts.
Since Chris Bell can't outpoll "Undecided" after a year in the game, it seems savaging the reputation of any competition is the fallback position for the campaign. Sad.
Lots of TX Democrats could get tarred with that brush. In 1993, believe it or not, TX made it illegal for Communists to be employed by the state, four years after the fall of the Berlin Wall. It was just silly grandstanding, but Ds controlled both chambers and the governorship. There was as much or more political silliness in the name of anti-communism before 1989 as there is today about anti-terrorism. You've just stumbled onto a dumb example, or J. Stanford did.
I don't have an opinion between Bell and Gammage, but when I choose it will be because of their present positions, not what they said in the 70s about HUAC.
There's no hemming and hawing about abortion, Greg, and to say otherwise is as much of a distortion of the truth as that letter from the Dirty Dozen.
Bob Gammage has been pro-choice since BEFORE Roe v. Wade. During his time in Congress he had problems with federal funding for abortions, NOT a woman's right to choose. He has since, PRIOR to this campaign, changed his position and admitted the mistake. We finally have a politician who will admit mistakes and you want to beat him up?
As for this HUAC nonsense, you've got the wrong chamber Greg. McCarthy was in the Senate and if you're going to try to paint someone with the same brush try something that's a little less of a reach. McCarthy and Gammage is about as believable as Barney Frank dating Trent Lott.
Why are we discussing a bill the entire TX delegation supported (Bob didn't write this, nor did he introduce it) when you've made no mention of Chris' support for the Bankruptcy Bill. That's my reason for not supporting Joe Biden in anything he does in the future, AND THAT'S MY REASON FOR NOT SUPPORTING DINO CHRIS BELL.
Is it true that Bell voted for the Bankruptcy Bill? After I found out that Al Green supported it -- and castigated him publicly -- I vowed to never again support anyone who voted for it. I thought Green was a total sellout for that vote. If Bell voted the same way, he is a sellout also.
Ooops! Obviously Bell did not vote for it; the guy who stomped him into the ground with a racist campaign voted for it. Did Bell support it?
Yes, he supported it and so did Ken Bentsen.
Final results for roll call 74 - HR 975, Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act - http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll074.xml